SAN DIEGO -- Incumbent Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom (D) sunk rapidly into personal attacks and name-calling yesterday as he dodges media requests for a debate, but four years ago Newsom, then the challenger, took a very different approach.

In 2010, as the challenger to then-Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado (R), Newsom engaged in a total of three debates: one televised and two on radio.

"Four years ago, as the incumbent, Lt. Governor Maldonado could have taken the Gavin Newsom approach to debates and refused them all, instead resorting to juvenile personal attacks as Newsom is today. But, Lt. Gov. Maldonado put the interests of democracy first and engaged his challenger in three lively debates that provided voters with an idea as to each man's qualifications and record. Voters deserve that same opportunity today," said Republican Lt. Governor nominee Ron Nehring.

Newsom, then the Mayor of San Francisco challenging Maldonado for the post he ultimately won, agreed in 2010 to three debates: On September 28, 2010 on KQED radio in San Francisco, on October 7, 2010 in Sunnyvale at the headquarters of NextApp, and on October 15, 2010 on KPCC radio in Southern California.

"There's more than a whiff of the incumbent's well-known arrogance in this latest refusal to accept any of the multiple media invitations to a Lt. Governor debate. It demonstrates an unfortunate disregard for the voters and our democratic traditions for any incumbent to refuse to be challenged on his ideas, his qualifications and his record.

How about MS-NBC?﻿SAN DIEGO - With absentee ballots due to be mailed to voters in just a few days and incumbent Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom (D) continuing to decline media invitations for a Lt. Governor debate, Republican challenger Ron Nehring is offering accommodations to ease Newsom's concerns."With Bay Area public radio apparently not providing a favorable enough platform for Mr. Newsom to debate, we're willing to accept a forum moderated by MS-NBC's Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz. If MS-NBC isn't favorable enough, we could be talked into doing it on either Russian government-funded RT television, or North Korea's KCNA, although with that last one we can't find a bureau for them in the United States. We're checking," said Nehring, who first challenged Newsom to debate six months ago."We also understand that time could be an issue, with Mr. Newsom very busy not chairing the state's now-defunct Economic Development Commission, not going to the Capitol much, and spending so much time on his wine business. Still, we know that trying to run a business while supporting every anti-business idea under the sun is kind of like running a three-legged race with a partner who is heavily sedated, he could be very busy. So we're willing to limit the debate time to one hour, or four times the length of his last speech to the California Democratic Party in which he did not cite a single accomplishment of his term," added Nehring."Finally, we know location could be a problem, given the driving range of his not one - but two - Teslas, so we're open to any television station within 265 miles of his wineries in Napa, or less, depending on whether his Teslas have the 85 Kw or 60 Kw battery option," concluded Nehring. "We'd like to make this work."

"California spends more per mile on administrative costs than 46 other states. High overhead costs, state rules that needlessly drive up costs, and lack of competition have left Californians with poor quality highways despite paying the nation's second highest gas taxes," said Nehring. "Even worse, gas prices will shoot up by up to another 70 cents per gallon beginning January 1, with much of those funds being diverted to the high speed rail boondoggle instead of road improvements."

Last year the Bureau of State Audits released the findings of its four year investigation of CalTrans and found numerous serious problems at the agency, including that employees falsified test data. In one case, a CalTrans technician was fired after a news report detailed his transgressions, but his firing was later rescinded and the technician was allowed to retire with full benefits.

"The continued poor condition of California's freeways, combined with the episodes documented by the Bureau of State Audits, make clear we need root-and-branch reform of how taxpayer dollars are used to build and maintain roads," said Nehring. "Claims that the state is on a comeback while its citizens continue navigating some of the nation's worst roads just aren't credible."

Among the reforms Nehring supports:

An increase in the role of the private sector to use competition to drive down costs for design, engineering, maintenance, and standards following the "managed competition" model adopted by the City of San Diego.

A shift in traffic enforcement to focus on safety instead of revenue generation for government.

A review of the education and training required prior to the issuance of a California's Driver's License.

The repeal of rules applying AB 32 ("cap and trade") regulations to transportation fuels to avoid the expected spike in fuel prices coming January 1.

Reform of work and contracting rules to allow projects to be completed more quickly and at lower costs.

SAN DIEGO -- Republican Lt. Governor nominee Ron Nehring today released the following statement for Rosh Hashanah, which begins tonight:

"Jewish families throughout California, the United States, Israel and the world tonight mark the beginning of Rosh Hashanah. It is with hope and optimism for the future that we begin this new year.

"In this time of conflict and as the Jewish people continue to face the threats of violence and anti-Semitism at home and abroad, I'm confident Californians will continue to stand with our ally Israel and the Jewish people. Let us pray and work toward peace and security together in this new year. L'shanah tovah!

California's Republican statewide candidates are working hard to offer real solutions to poverty, high energy prices, and a middle class under pressure. Sometimes, though, someone back in Washington says something that gets in the way. It's important for all Republicans, even those from less diverse communities, to understand the importance of building a broad coalition. It's especially important in states like California, Arizona, New MexicRon Nehring in the Sacramento Bee Published: Monday, Sep. 22, 2014 - 12:30 am California’s Republican statewide candidates are working hard to define the GOP as focused on providing practical solutions to the state’s lagging economy, high poverty rate and underperforming schools.As the party that doesn’t hold the White House, the “Republican brand” is most strongly defined by Republican members of Congress whose statements and actions in Washington give most Americans their strongest signals as to what our party is all about.This dynamic of national figures defining the Republican brand everywhere is often helpful, such as by calling attention to unsustainable spending and debt, or highlighting the dangers of hollowing out our military while new global challenges continue to emerge. However, there is also a powerful downside that has a real and tangible impact in California and throughout the Southwest.Well-respected analyst Charlie Cook notes that following the 2010 redistricting, the average House district held by a Republican went from 73 percent white to 75 percent, while during the previous decade the national electorate dropped from 67 percent white to 64 percent. In other words, House Republicans seen daily on television defining the party brand increasingly hail from districts where winning the support of Latinos, Asians and African Americans is not essential for their own re-election.In July 2013, Iowa Republican Steve King said this in opposition to legislation that would allow children who came here illegally to apply for citizenship: “For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that, they weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”Now, for King, whose state has a tiny Latino population (just 5.3 percent in the 2010 census), there’s little price to be paid at the next election for such comments because, for him, the Republican Party doesn’t have a problem with Latino voters. He doesn’t personally need them for his own re-election.However, when those words receive national attention, especially in Spanish-language media such as Univision and Telemundo, they serve to define the Republican Party – and not in a way that does any members of his party in the Southwest any favors. In fact, such comments move many Latinos more firmly into the Democratic camp.This highlights the serious challenge that racial gerrymandering creates for Republicans in California with its diverse electorate: The GOP brand is heavily influenced by elected officials elsewhere who have little incentive to earn the support of the tiny Latino, Asian or African American communities in their districts.Yet, for Republicans in Congress who would like to see their bills signed by a Republican president, changing direction and broadening the appeal of the party’s brand is imperative. In recent presidential elections, we have seen multiple states with large Latino populations move increasingly out of range: New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and California most prominent among them.Democrats are not immune to the effects of racial gerrymandering, either, but the effect is muted by President Barack Obama’s influence in defining his own party’s brand with greater impact than his fellow Democrats in Congress.Several of California’s Republican members of Congress, especially those representing heavily Latino districts in the Central Valley, and our statewide candidates, help point the way forward by highlighting ways to improve America’s immigration system, consciously building broad coalitions of support outside of the traditional GOP comfort zone and avoiding the off-putting rhetoric.Immigration is a key “gateway” issue for many Latino voters. Claiming that no improvements to our immigration system or procedures can be made until the border is secure doesn’t cut it. Many Latinos see a “100 percent secure” border as a fantasy, and therefore an excuse for leaving the status quo in place.Yet, Republicans’ skepticism of government should make our party the natural party of reform, not just in immigration but in everything. We can begin by clearly articulating the reforms we support, and their benefits, while making it a priority to win the backing of diverse communities even when the math doesn’t require it. Because the future does.

Today marks the 13th anniversary of 9/11, and the rapid deterioration of several nations in the Middle East and North Africa has taken many Americans and our leaders by surprise. Iraq, Syria and Libya have all seen terrorist groups spread their influence and grow in both military power and sophistication. Yemen, Egypt and Nigeria each have a substantial Islamic terrorist presence. North Korea possesses nuclear weapons while Iran continues to develop them together with the means of delivering them. In the event of another large scale terrorist attack on the United States, it is the responsibility of state and local governments to deal most directly with the domestic consequences. America was already under terrorist attack during the decade leading up to 9/11: the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam in 1998, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, and the list goes on. Yet it was only after those four planes crashed into sites in Virginia, New York and Pennsylvania did America seriously mobilize to meet this threat. In an era of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapons that can destroy every piece of electronic equipment and the electric grid in a large area, and biological weapons that can be developed in even just about any pharmaceutical lab around the world, it doesn’t take a majority vote to kill – or threaten to kill – large numbers of Americans. It only takes a handful, or a single, terrorist. America invaded and took control of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11 because the country provided a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Now, the Islamic State (or ISIS) commands more territory, military hardware, and people than Al Qaeda ever did on its best day. This month, 11 commercial jets went missing after Islamic terrorists seized control of the airport in Tripoli, Libya. And hundreds of Americans and Europeans are in these theaters currently, having joined with the jihadists, and are learning the techniques used to commit unspeakable acts of violence. Some have expressed concern that jihadists would choose to enter the United States though our porous border with Mexico. But it’s far more likely that bad actors will enter the country through JFK or LAX. Of special concern are the several hundred Westerners, and their passports, now participating in a version of terrorist training camp in Iraq and Syria. American intelligence is good, but not perfect, in detecting would-be terrorists attempting to enter the country. And it doesn’t help that Edward Snowden has been busy dumping the how-to manuals for U.S. surveillance techniques onto the internet for every U.S. adversary from Moscow to Pyongyang to see and develop countermeasures. In advance of his 2012 re-election bid, President Obama claimed Al Qaeda was “on the run” and that American troops were leaving behind a “stable” Iraq. Both claims have proven to be wishful thinking, and we must now deal with the potential consequences of a world that in many places has taken a turn into darkness. During the 2003 Cedar Fire that engulfed my neighborhood, I witnessed first-hand how something as simple as a wildfire can cripple transportation corridors, leaving threatened residents with no way to escape. In America, we build infrastructure for normal conditions. But a terrorist attack creates abnormal conditions for which we are often unprepared, with potentially deadly consequences. The world has become more dangerous, and it is time for a serious discussion of the additional steps we can take to ensure we are strong by being prepared, and this involves setting priorities. It is more important today that we harden our electric grid against a potential EMP blast than to build a “high speed” train that few people want and even fewer will use. Priority should be given to providing additional training to law enforcement to better respond to a terrorist attack over dreaming up more intrusive ways to issue tickets for minor traffic violations. In Sacramento, passing bills concerning plastic bags, the color of toy guns and recognizing Compost Awareness Month might be quaint, but they reveal our state government is acting as if it is oblivious to the changing world around us. Smart government anticipates risks and takes steps to mitigate those risks while being prepared for the worst. In the event terrorists succeed in their stated goal of attacking the United States, state and local governments are our first responders. It’s time to ensure we are ready for whatever comes our way. - See more at: http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2014/09/10/911-anniversary-as-terrorists-again-threaten-america-is-california-prepared/#sthash.3uelztbW.dpuf